Thriving under pressure: The effects of stress-related wise interventions on affect, sleep, and exam performance for college students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Nearly all students experience stress as they pursue important academic goals. Because stress can be magnified for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, it becomes important to identify interventions that can help mitigate this stress, particularly for these populations as they enter academic environments. We examine the effects of stress mindset and stress management interventions administered to students from disadvantaged backgrounds (N = 140) before freshman year. We compare effects on affect, sleep, and performance during end-of-year exams seen in a subset of these students who could be tracked via experience sampling (N = 57) to those of a comparison group at the same elite university (N = 74) receiving no such stress interventions. As predicted, we find significant differences in exam-week positive affect between the stress mindset and comparison groups. However, there was no difference in positive affect between the stress mindset and management groups or the stress management and comparison groups. For negative affect, stress, sleep, and exam performance, we find no significant differences between any of the three groups. However, both stress interventions decoupled the significant negative association between exam-week stress and exam performance exhibited by the comparison group, rendering the relationship nonsignificant. The reduction in this association was somewhat more pronounced for the mindset relative to the management group. These findings suggest that mindset and management approaches both confer benefits in certain circumstances and highlight the potential value of targeting mindsets about stress using a "wise intervention" approach for students from disadvantaged backgrounds during stressful times. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Perceptions of variability in facial emotion influence beliefs about the stability of psychological characteristics.

Beliefs about the malleability versus stability of traits (incremental vs. entity lay theories) have a profound impact on social cognition and self-regulation, shaping phenomena that range from the fundamental attribution error and group-based stereotyping to academic motivation and achievement. Less is known about the causes than the effects of these lay theories, and in the current work the authors examine the perception of facial emotion as a causal influence on lay theories. Specifically, they hypothesized that (a) within-person variability in facial emotion signals within-person variability in traits and (b) social environments replete with within-person variability in facial emotion encourage perceivers to endorse incremental lay theories. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, Study 1 participants were more likely to attribute dynamic (vs. stable) traits to a person who exhibited several different facial emotions than to a person who exhibited a single facial emotion across multiple images. Hypothesis 2 suggests that social environments support incremental lay theories to the extent that they include many people who exhibit within-person variability in facial emotion. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, participants in Studies 2-4 were more likely to endorse incremental theories of personality, intelligence, and morality after exposure to multiple individuals exhibiting within-person variability in facial emotion than after exposure to multiple individuals exhibiting a single emotion several times. Perceptions of within-person variability in facial emotion-rather than perceptions of simple diversity in facial emotion-were responsible for these effects. Discussion focuses on how social ecologies shape lay theories. (PsycINFO Database Record